>From ian at hawk.freenetproject.org (Ian Clarke) >On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 07:28:31PM +0100, Adam Langley wrote: >> Current plans for whiterose are that the FCP interface accepts FNP >> encrypted connections and allows extra admin commands to be sent if >> the fingerprint is good. > >FCP is definitely a desirable choice for this, however I think that >requiring FNP encrypted connections (rather than a simple password) will >negate many of the advantages of FCP in-terms of ease of client-side >implementation. If we mandate a local connection (the default) *and* a >password it is difficult to see how the admin interface could be >attacked. > >Ian. >
As long as we have a secure way of negotiating the FCP port and don't rely on an assumed default port. (it'd be too easy for another local user to listen on the default port and spoof a FCP password request) -- Benjamin Coates _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
